Skip to content

Conversation

@gzliudan
Copy link
Collaborator

Proposed changes

Ref: ethereum#28488

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to XDC network?
Put an in the boxes that apply

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)
  • Regular KTLO or any of the maintaince work. e.g code style
  • CICD Improvement

Impacted Components

Which part of the codebase this PR will touch base on,

Put an in the boxes that apply

  • Consensus
  • Account
  • Network
  • Geth
  • Smart Contract
  • External components
  • Not sure (Please specify below)

Checklist

Put an in the boxes once you have confirmed below actions (or provide reasons on not doing so) that

  • This PR has sufficient test coverage (unit/integration test) OR I have provided reason in the PR description for not having test coverage
  • Provide an end-to-end test plan in the PR description on how to manually test it on the devnet/testnet.
  • Tested the backwards compatibility.
  • Tested with XDC nodes running this version co-exist with those running the previous version.
  • Relevant documentation has been updated as part of this PR
  • N/A

@gzliudan gzliudan force-pushed the goja-inconsistencies branch from 308457f to 5fb211e Compare August 13, 2025 04:56
@gzliudan gzliudan changed the title [WIP] eth/tracers/js: fix type inconsistencies #28488 eth/tracers/js: fix type inconsistencies #28488 Sep 3, 2025
This change fixes two type-inconsistencies in the JS tracer:

- In most places we return byte arrays as a `Uint8Array` to the tracer. However it seems we missed doing the conversion for `ctx` fields which are passed to the tracer during `result`. They are passed as simple arrays. I think Uint8Arrays are more suitable and we should change this inconsistency. Note: this will be a breaking-change. But I believe the effect is small. If we look at our tracers we see that these fields (`ctx.from`, `ctx.to`, etc.) are used in 2 ways. Passed to `toHex` which takes both array or buffer. Or the length was measured which is the same for both types.
- The `slice` taking in `int, int` params versus `memory.slice` taking `int64, int64` params. I suggest changing `slice` types to `int64`. This should have no effect almost in any case.
@gzliudan gzliudan force-pushed the goja-inconsistencies branch from 5fb211e to d9fdd10 Compare September 9, 2025 07:52
@gzliudan gzliudan merged commit fe33714 into XinFinOrg:dev-upgrade Sep 9, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
@gzliudan gzliudan deleted the goja-inconsistencies branch September 9, 2025 07:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants